Allowed

Shameer v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 May 2016Crl.MC/2724/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed pending proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that the substratum of the prosecution case was destroyed following an amicable settlement between the parties, justifying the invocation of inherent powers to quash the case under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings as against the petitioner in S.C. No. 243/2015 arising from Crime No. 196/2009 are quashed.

Shameer Vs the State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2016/28TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2724 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC 243/2015 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI CRIME NO. 196/2009 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

SHAMEER, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS, PEVUNGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, AMBALAVATTOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE, DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. K.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. SAIDALIKUTTY, KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, PULIKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-67.

¶13

3. SHAFI, S/O. MARAKKAR, KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, PULIKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-67.

¶14

4. ILLYAS, S/O. MARAKKAR, KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, PULIKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-67.

¶15

5. SAIDALAVI, S/O. SAIDALIKUTTY, KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM, DESOM, PULIKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-67.

¶16

R2-5 BY ADV. SMT.M.LISHA

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE P. BY ADV.SMT.M.LISHA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rvs.

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2724 of 2016 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

ANNEXURE	A COPY OF THE KOTTA	THE FINAL KKAL POLICE	REPORT/C STATION	HARGE IN CRIME NO.196/2009 OF .
ANNEXURE	B COPY OF ADDITIONA	JUDGMENT DT L SESSIONS	D.28.11. JUDGE(AD	2012 IN SC NO.204/2010 OF THE HOC)-III, MANJERI.
ANNEXURE	C COPY OF DTD.12.4.	AFFIDAVIT 2016.	SWORN	TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE	D COPY OF DTD.12.4.	AFFIDAVIT 2016.	SWORN	TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT,
ANNEXURE	E COPY OF DTD.12.4.	AFFIDAVIT 2016.	SWORN	TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT,
ANNEXURE	F COPY OF DTD.12.4.	AFFIDAVIT 2016.	SWORN	TO BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.2724 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 18^th day of May, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

1.The petitioner herein is the 4^th accused in Crime No.196/2009 of Kottakkal Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered for offence punishable under S. 143, 147, 148, 427, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 r/w S.149 of the IPC.

¶34

2.Investigation was conducted and final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and cognizance was taken as S.C.No. 204/2010 by the Sessions Court. The petitioner herein did not appear as he was working abroad. As against the other accused, trial was proceeded with and as per judgment dated 28.11.2012, which is produced as

¶35

Annexure B herein, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 were acquitted under S. 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.2724 of 2016 : 2 :

¶37

( hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The case against the petitioner was split up and the same is now pending for trial before the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc) III, Manjeri as S.C. No.243/2015.

¶38

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on Annexure B judgment, that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The injured witness had stated that the matter had been settled and the dispute has been amicably resolved. Referring to Para. 10 of the judgment, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had also taken note of the fact that the matter had already been settled between the parties and that neither the de facto complainant nor the injured witnesses were desirous in prosecuting the accused.

¶40

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.2724 of 2016 : 3 :

¶42

to 5 would submit that the aforesaid respondents have filed Annexures C, D, E and F affidavits before Court asserting that the disputes between the petitioner herein

¶43

and the injured witnesses have been settled and that they

¶44

are not desirous of prosecuting the petitioner anymore.

¶45

I have anxiously gone through the judgment rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The same would reveal that the matter has been settled. None of the witnesses had deposed in favor of the prosecution. In

¶46

Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) and also Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011

¶47

(2) KHC 812), it has been held that when substratum of the case is destroyed, there is no point in pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused.

¶48

7.After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5, I am of the considered opinion that this is one of those exceptional cases where prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction can be

¶49

Crl.M.C.No.2724 of 2016 : 4 :

¶50

justifiably invoked to serve the ends of justice. The bona fides of the petitioner in approaching this Court with the prayer cannot be doubted as the substratum of the case has been destroyed. It has been held by the Apex Court, that the High Court, while exercising powers under S. 482 of the Code will be justified in quashing cases involving even non-compoundable offence if the disputes are really private in nature and no public interests are involved provided that the offences are not of the gravely objectionable variety. I am convinced that the extraordinary powers under S. 482 of the Code can be invoked as the case falls within the matrix of guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2012 (4) KLT 108) and Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2014) 6 SCC

¶51

466) and other cases.

¶52

8.It is also felt that quashing of the instant proceeding would bring about peace and secure ends of justice. No purpose will be served in subjecting the parties to the

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.2724 of 2016 : 5 :

¶54

ordeal of a protracted trial in view of the settlement. It will only enure to waste valuable judicial hours. I am, therefore, of the view that the criminal proceedings pending as against the petitioner can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S. 482 of the Code.

¶55

9.In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings as against the petitioner in S.C.No. 243/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc) III, Manjeri arising out of Crime No.196/2009 of Kottakkal police station police station shall stand quashed.

¶56

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶57

¶58

[True copy]

¶59

P.A to Judge

Shameer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Vs Muneer

Anju@Bidesh Vs Sujith

P J Jose Vs State of Kerala

Febin Vs State of Kerala

Nijas Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala